Losing the biblical gospel
From J.I. Packer in The Quest for Godliness:
There is no doubt that evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor’s dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and or equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realizing it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. Why?We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be ‘helpful’ to man - to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction - and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was ‘helpful’, too - more so, indeed, than is the new - but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its center of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the center of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach people to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and his ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed…
July 28th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
A very good quote and so true! Thanks!
July 29th, 2006 at 11:51 am
I realise that I’m not known to this bog, but I never understand what it is that people mean when they say that Christians don’t but should give glory to God. I also don’t understand the fairly recent calls against “feeling good” about being a Christian - in the old days people would say that if you followed a call and there were “fruits” and you felt fulfiled, that this was a way to know that the call was from God.
I’ve been a Christian all my life (I’m 49) but this stuff sounds like jargon to me (with respect to JI Packer who is certainly a “name” I’d respect).
When a preacher calls on me to “give glory to God” what does he think I’m doing wrong at the moment? Concretely? And how do I change it?
When a preacher tells me that I’m engaging in “feel good religion” what does he think I’m doing wrong? And how do I change it? Concretely?
July 29th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Hi Pam,
Not sure if this answer will be concrete enough. I don’t know that it’s about doing something different as much as it is wanting something different. If we believe the Gospel is about us, then we put ourselves at the center and it’s about meeting our own needs. If we put God at the center, and trust that anything that the Kingdom costs is worth it (like the pearl of great price), then that is a different orientation. We want something different.
Somebody’s said that maybe it’s more “God loves you and has a difficult plan for your life.” Not that it’s not worth it - after all, it is something more valuable than anything else.
More to come on this site - don’t think I’ve given the definitive answer here.